Measuring the health-related quality of life and sexual functioning of patients with rectal cancer: does type of treatment matter?

The literature on the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after rectal cancer is growing, however, a comparison between patients with nonadvanced disease (NAD), locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) and a normative population has not been made. Data on the sexual functioning of patient groups is also scarce. We compared (i) the HRQOL of patients with NAD, LARC, or LRRC, with a special focus on sexual functioning and (ii) the HRQOL of the three treatment groups with a normative population. The EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR38 were completed by 80 patients with NAD, 292 LARC patients and 67 LRRC patients. The normative population (n = 350) completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Sexual Functioning and Sexual Enjoyment scales of the CR38. LRRC patients reported a lower Physical Function, Social Function, Future Perspective, Sexual Functioning and more Pain compared with LARC and NAD patients. Also, LRRC patients had a worse Body image than NAD patients and a lower Male Sexual Functioning than LARC patients. More than 75% of men and 50% of women were sexually active preoperative, compared with less than 50% and less than 35% postoperative. Male LRRC patients had more problems with erectile or ejaculatory functioning and felt less masculine than NAD or LARC patients. Women did not differ on Lubrication, Dyspareunia and Body Image. About 10% of patients used aids in order to improve erectile functioning (men) or lubrication (women). The treatment groups reported a lower HRQOL and sexual functioning compared with the normative population.

Focus on extralevator perineal dissection in supine position for low rectal cancer has led to better quality of surgery and oncologic outcome.

BACKGROUND: After abdominoperineal excision (APE), the presence of tumor cells in the circumferential resection margin (R1) and iatrogenic tumor perforations are still frequent and result in an increased rate of local recurrences. In this study, a standardized supine APE with an increased focus on the perineal dissection (sPPD) is compared to the customary supine APE. METHODS: From 2000 to 2010, a total of 246 patients underwent APE for rectal cancer (sPPD and customary supine APE). All patients were staged with preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and received neoadjuvant treatment (n = 203) when margins were involved or threatened (cT3 + and T4). As a result of a quality improvement program in 2006, the surgical technique was modified: it became standardized, emphasis was placed on the perineal dissection, and pelvic dissection was limited to avoid false routes when following the total mesorectal excision planes deep into the pelvis. RESULTS: Overall, the percentage of involved circumferential resection margins (CRMs) was 10%. In the period before introducing sPPD, the R1 percentages for cT0-3 and cT4 tumors were 6.8 and 30.2%, compared to 2.2 and 5.7% after introduction of sPPD (P = 0.001). Risk factors for R1 resection were preoperative T4 tumors (14.9%, P = 0.011), tumor perforation (33.3%, P = 0.002), fistulating tumors (35.7%, P = 0.002), mucus-producing tumors (23.1%, P = 0.006), or bulky tumors (66.7%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The objective of surgical treatment of low rectal cancer is to obtain negative resection margins and subsequently reduce the risk of local recurrence. A combination of the appropriate preoperative treatment and standardized surgical technique such as sPPD can achieve this goal.

T3+ and T4 rectal cancer patients seem to benefit from the addition of oxaliplatin to the neoadjuvant chemoradiation regimen.

BACKGROUND: To achieve T-downstaging and better resectability in locally advanced rectal cancer, neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (RCT) has become the current standard of treatment. A variety of schemes have been used. This study investigates which scheme had the best effect on these parameters. METHODS: Our institution is a referral center for locally advanced rectal cancer. Different neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy regimens were administered: long course radiotherapy (RTH), 5-FU and leucovorin (5FUBolus), a combination of capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CORE), and capecitabine only (CAP). Selection of patients for 1 of the regimens was based on hospital policy rather than patient or tumor characteristics. RESULTS: The data of 504 consecutive patients (n = 181 T3+, n = 323 T4) without metastatic disease (cM0) who underwent surgery for advanced rectal carcinoma between 1994 and 2010 were reviewed. The RTH, 5FUBolus, CORE, and CAP scheme were administered to 106, 137, 155, and 106 patients, respectively. Odds ratios for downstaging were less effective for RTH, 5FUBolus, and CAP (0.31, 0.44, and 0.31; P < .0001) when compared with the CORE scheme. Odds ratios for a R1 resection (3.74, 1.94, 1.14; P = .003) or CRM+ resection (3.78, 2.73, 1.34; P = .001) were also in favor of the CORE. Hazard ratios for CSS were significantly better for the CORE scheme. CONCLUSIONS: Downstaging with neoadjuvant treatment results in an increased number of radical resections. In our study, the combination of capecitabine and oxaliplatin appears to be the most effective regimen for locally advanced rectal cancer tumors. However, longer follow-up will be necessary to confirm this conclusion.